Linda Valdez has been writing commentary for The Arizona Republic since 1993. A graduate of the University of Arizona, she worked at The Arizona Daily Star in Tucson before coming to the Republic.

She has won numerous state and national writing awards. In 2011, she won the Scripps Howard Walker Stone Award for editorial writing, and she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2003. She is author of a book, "A Doctor's Legacy," which tells the life story of Merlin K. "Monte" DuVal, the man who founded Arizona's first medical school at the University of Arizona. She has done commentaries on radio and television in Tucson.

Valdez has been married since 1988 to a wonderful man who immigrated from Mexico. They have a beautiful daughter.

Arizona could wind up with another hometown kid in the Obama Cabinet if a coalition of 238 environmental groups have their way.

According to The Arizona Daily Star, the push is on make Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva that next Interior secretary. There is also a petition on WhiteHouse.gov to get Grijalva in the position.

If his supporters are successful, Grijalva would would join Bruce Babbitt and Stewart Udall as Arizonans who have served as Interior secretary. Grijalva was mentioned as a candidate for the job four years ago. But the nod went to Ken Salazar, who has not been a big hit with environmentalists.

Grijalva has solid environmental credentials and a keen understanding of the need to give conservation an edge over exploitation of public land resources.

"Congressman Grijalva has been a tireless and effective leader on conservation and land management issues faced by the Department of the Interior," the groups wrote in their letter to the president. "Congressman Grijalva has unparalleled expertise with Native Americans and Indian tribes, a strong understanding of border issues, a well-established and pragmatic conservation ethic, and valuable experience with a wide variety of funding challenges.

"We strongly believe Congressman Grijalva exemplifies the modern and forward-thinking vision of the Department of the Interior."

Among the local groups that signed in support of Grijalva are the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, the Arizona Native Plant Society, the Arizona Wilderness Coalition, the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, Don't Waste Arizona, the Mount Graham Coalition, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, the Sky Island Alliance, Sustainable Arizona and the Tucson Audubon Society.

Grijalva is a leading Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources and is the ranking member in the subcommittee on national parks, forests and public lands."

Politicians are doing their best to scare us into thinking the "fiscal cliff" was predicted by the ancient Mayans to mark the end times. They hate to waste a crisis.

Your best defense is skepticism. This is not Y2K or the Comet Kohoutek.

More than one economist has said we face more of a slope than a cliff.

Even if we go over, Congress can fix things retroactively early next year, according to Chad Stone at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

What's really scary is the way both sides are talking about what used to be widely referred to as "social safety-net programs."

Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid.

These programs should be discussed with language that emphasizes the humanity of recipients and our shared national commitment to take care of the sick and the elderly.

You know what I mean if you're old enough to remember the fizzle-down of Kohoutek, the low-show celestial body that was superhyped as the "comet of the century" in the mid-1970s.

Back then, the social safety net was a moral imperative, not an epithet.

These days, you hear a lot about "entitlements."

This loaded term carries a connotation of something expected but not necessarily deserved. Adolescents feel entitled to use their parents' cars, for example.

What's more, these "entitlements" are increasingly being portrayed as the barrier between us and fiscal nirvana -- or at least solvency.

As with any effective lie, there is a particle of truth in this. (Although I'd put tax cuts for all, two wars and a Great Recession higher on the list of things that got us into today's money trouble.)

Tomorrow is another matter.

In the number-crunching world of the national budget, calling something an entitlement means it is a program for which benefits are guaranteed to all who qualify. This means trouble.

Unless something is done, Baby Boomers could crash programs we grew up hoping to enjoy in our elder years. Factor in rising costs of medical care, and you get a real need for reforms.

But this is nothing new, and that's why today's deafening clamor for immediate entitlement reform smacks of opportunism.

Back in the days when George W. Bush was president, entitlement reform meant privatizing Social Security. This went over like a lead balloon with the public, but some on the right still salivate at the thought of off-loading this federal responsibility to the for-profit sector.

For them, the term "entitlement" is a lot more useful than "social contract" or "safety net."

Defining a problem puts you on the road to a solution -- but not necessarily the right road.

It is wrong to define "entitlements" as runaway spending programs and "reform" as something that has to curb them quickly -- before 2013 turns us all into pumpkins. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not the functional equivalent of handing over the car keys to a surly teenager. They should not be held hostage to a lame-duck budget deal.

These programs are built on a solid moral foundation. They reflect the fact that we are more than a collection of remote-control-wielding individuals in search of our favorite cable shows.

We, the people, have a responsibility to one another. One of the functions of government is to help us fulfill that responsibility.

Reforms are necessary to strengthen Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for the long term. But those reforms should begin with an understanding that the social safety net is a national trust and shared national responsibility. A good thing worth preserving.

We don't need a quickie job based on scare tactics and hidden agendas.

Arizona Democratic Reps. Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor were among dozens of House members who signed a letter to Speaker John Boehner today telling him to keep Social Security off the table in budget discussions.

The letter points out: “Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation’s deficit problem.”

It goes on:

“Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing. Social Security must pay all benefits from its own trust fund. . . . Social Security cannot drive up the deficit by tapping general revenues to pay benefits. Additionally, it is important to note that over its lifetime, Social Security has collected and earned $15.5 trillion and only paid out $12.9 trillion in benefits.

Even though Social Security operates in a fiscally responsible manner, some still advocate deep benefit cuts and seem convinced that Social Security hands out lavish welfare checks. But Social Security is not welfare. Seniors earned their benefits by working hard and paying into the system. Meanwhile, the average monthly Social Security benefit for seniors is only about $1,200, quite low by international standards.

For all these reasons, we believe it would be a serious mistake to cut Social Security benefits for current or future beneficiaries as part of a deficit reduction package. To be sure, Social Security has its own long-term challenges that will need to be addressed in the decades ahead. But the budget and Social Security are separate and should be considered separately.

Lawmakers, like old generals, will fight yesterday’s battles if they think border walls have reduced illegal immigration. They need to look further south if they think their strategies worked.

Demographic and economic changes in Mexico mean fewer Mexicans are crossing the border illegally. But drug trafficking and poverty in countries south of Mexico are driving increasing numbers of migrants north from those countries.

If the United States sees the border buildup – rather than demographic, economic and social changes – as the reason for the decrease in illegal immigration from Mexico, it will continue an expensive border buildup.

Now Mexico is creating its own border patrol on its own southern border.

This law enforcement strategy will create more border crises. Here and along Mexico’s southern border.

It’s a mistake to treat illegal border crosses who are seeking work or family like criminals. They are motivated by more elevated human desires. They are not criminals. A law enforcement approach to a problem caused by poverty and human need is costly and cruel, and it creates an opening for real criminals to get rich as smugglers.

Our southern border has shown us that people who are migrating because of human needs can be crushed by criminal smugglers, broken by desert heat or chased by law enforcement. They will risk death and endure mistreatment.

But they will not be dissuaded. Their human motivation is too strong.

Understanding that is essential to designing a strategy that works.

We also have to accept our responsibility for this mess.

A rich country is a magnet for the poor. They do our labor and we enjoy the benefits. A country that consumes great quantities of illegal recreational drugs contributes to the destabilization of poor nations where criminals work to supply that need.

The United States is that rich country. We have a responsibility to look for real solutions.

We need strategies that correctly assess and address the human motivations behind illegal immigration. Migrant workers and their families don’t constitute a law enforcement problem. It’s a human problem. The appetite for illegal drugs in the United States does create a law enforcement problem at our border and in Mexico and Central America.

The last battle plan confused the two problems. It didn’t really work.

The Tucson Metropolitan and Convention and Visitors Bureau told the Tucson City Council this week that the Old Pueblo is 15th out of 15 cities in hotel occupancy. This was according to the bureau’s figures, and it represents an improvement.

"They do say we are doing better," Tucson City Councilman Paul Cunningham writes in a message to constituents.

He goes on to say:

The city provides the Bureau with $2.4 million, nearly 40% of their budget. I know that promoting events like the Accenture Match Play tournament outside of Tucson provides the Tucson region with valuable exposure and even some tourist dollars; I’d still like to see more emphasis on events in Tucson that will attract people that stay in Tucson hotels and eat at Tucson restaurants.

Major League Soccer preseason, for example, gave our city international exposure when world wide stars like David Beckham and Thierry Henry were playing at Kino Stadium last year. This year’s Soccer Fest will conclude with the Desert Diamond Cup final, a nationally broadcast game.

MLS is hoping to expand its Tucson activities further. We need to make sure that the Bureau is engaged in that and in bringing similar events to our city.

The shadow of SB 1070 and the continuing bad press the governor brings to Arizona has a price. But Tucson's lack of high-quality hotel rooms downtown may also be contributing to a lack of travelers.

Join thousands of azcentral.com fans on Facebook and get the day's most popular and talked-about Valley news, sports, entertainment and more - right in your newsfeed. You'll see what others are saying about the hot topics of the day.